Does it strike anyone as odd that they are so quick to call him some lone nut and just move on? Where are the psychologists with their expert
opionions. Paul Rand gave his expert opinion on the issue on the news but he is not a psychologist. A therapist needs to dig deeper talk to this young
man see what is going on in his head.
His thought patterns do some a little disorganized but I am not so sure this comes from mental illness. I personally need a lot more information. Keep
in mind I am 3 classes short of finishing my masters in Psychology. I have volunteered with a warmline here in Kansas City. I have talked to several
mentally ill indivuals including some at a local mental hospital.
Paranoid shizophrenics have more a frazzled state about them and their words are extremely disorganized in their psychotic state more so than Jared
Lee Loughner. I hate to say this but this will probably happen again. This is just a speculation but if we don't start looking at these indviuals as
human beings and figuring out what caused them to snap so to speak we will never end this type of pattern.
Of course the answer is always this was a set up or a plant of some sort and that is why no one is digging too deeply.
What does everyone think?

Originally posted by Calender
The man was not sane. No sane person takes out a gun in public and starts shooting people.

He also did drugs. If you people were not aware of it drug use is related to mental problems. Also it appears that there is a large population of
drug users on this site, and also a large population of mentally ill people on this site. I remember a thread about how many people had schizophrenic
on here a few months back, and a lot of members said they did. I've read many people here say they've done drugs, and also read many people state
they have mental illnesses. I just wanted you guys to know that drug use and mental illness can be linked, obviously it is not the only reason but it
still it is a factor in causing or accentuating mental illnesses there. There is not anything "harmless" about doing any type of mind-altering
drugs.

Now we know this man was mentally unstable and did drugs. And we also know what he did was not sane. My bet would be that he was demoniacally
possessed and that demons egged on this mentally unstable person (perhaps due to his drug use) to commit heinous crimes against humanity.

Maybe it was the demon itself that was talking about this "bird" with a body "to die for". What human would die for a bird figure? Besides,
angels are neither male nor female.

Really?

Your talking about schizo's and drug users while mentioning demon possession in the same breath?

on another note... and I only know this as my son is also named Jared. Have you seen the meaning of the name?

Jared is a proper name of Biblical derivation that is a common first name, mostly in North American English-speaking countries. In the Bible, Jared
was the sixth link in the ten pre-flood generations between Adam and Noah; he was the son of Mahalaleel and the father of Enoch, and lived 962 years
(per Genesis 5:18). ..... In the Book of Enoch it is explained that Mahalaleel named Jared because during his lifetime the angels of the Lord
descended to earth. The name could also be understood as "he who shall rule" (future tense of the Hebrew root RDH, as found for example in Psalms
72:8).

Great interpretation. Not sure if anyone else caught it, but the part that says "with the shape of a bald eagle that you could die for"
isn't it referencing the U.S.? The bald eagle is a symbol of the U.S. Is he actually talking about patriotism? Is he really saying "a country you
could die for"? Hmm....

I think you are on to something. He seems to want to replace everything old with something new and better. He seems to fantacize about a new
currency based on gold for example to replace the greenback and perhaps solve everyone's money issues. He talks about replacing the rampanat
brainwashing in America thru some grammar trick. Perhaps this new and unique bird is his idea for a new symbol to represent the new America once the
old, bad one is destroyed. A picture is starting to come together for me.

You shouldn't be afraid of the stars. There's a new bird on my right shoulder. The beak is two feet and lime green. The rarest bird on earth,
there's no feathers, but small grey scales all over the body. It's with one large red eye with a light blue iris. The bird feet are the same as a
woodpecker. This new bird and there's only one, the gender is not female or male. The wings of this bird are beautiful; 3 feet wide with the shape of
a bald eagle that you could die for. If you can see this bird then you will understand. You think this bird is able to chat about a government?

When I read this and I got to the part about the " It's with one large red eye with a light blue iris" it brought this to mind. .. "Gods Eye
Nebula"

edit on 1/8/2011 by GammaRayBurst because: (no reason
given)

I hope I can help with the HN thing...

This "Eye of God" is called the Helix Nebula, or NGC 7293, located in the constellation of Aquarius.
A star hits hn... but I´m not sure about az and Arizona.

yes, it's really her channel. I got there by going to her Official Congressional Website and then hitting a link that said "videos" on the right at
the top of the page (I think it was next to a facebook and Twitter links)/ That takes you to some typical videos of her in the Congress, etc. Right
below the screen on that is a small link to the address I provided, but if you just hit that link it takes you to part of her youtube site, but not
the address I listed or that's priinted. When you go back and copy the "Giffords2" link and paste in to the address bar, however, it takes you to
what I assume is another page of the youtube channel and brings up exactly what you see. It's a little tricky, but I'm absolutely certain this is
her channel. I could not and didn't believe that my tip was right when she told me about it and decided to check. Dam. She was right. What the hell
is that about?

I was just thinking about all this, and wondered if the bird he mentions could be a phoenix. I realize that the description doesn't really match up
with the classic description of a phoenix, but in the flag burning video where he mentions the bird, he asks the viewer to watch it backwards.
Forwards, the flag burns, backwards it rises from it's own ashes. Also, since a phoenix reproduces by combusting and then rising from it's own
ashes, it would be a rare bird that wouldn't need a gender.

Perhaps the description of it as scaly and gray means that it's going to die soon. It could be representative of how he views America. He could be
saying that America, like a phoenix, needs to go up in flames (war) and then the people will rise from the ashes to form a new government.

I'll tell you why they want you to think he is a lone nut.
Because they want to make his grievances fringe.
They want to make his actions deplorable. And they are. But they want to make a distinction between the government, the police and the corporations
and the media destroying life as being acceptable for what ever reason and actions like this from citizens as looney, unstable or mentally ill and
unacceptable.
This is a case of does as I say and not as I do.
But this man is acting just like the government. Just like the Military.
Just like Bruttal Police. Just like Corporations and Banks and the Media.
He did what he wanted to do, with little or no regard for the well being of others as long as he satisfied his own agenda and needs.

They don't want people reflecting on the state of affairs of the country.
They don't want you thinking that this is a symptom. They want you to disregard this mans reasons.
Especially as they may be political and even Anti-establishment.
They don't want the millions of disillusioned, unemployed, broke, homeless, healthcareless, pensionless, foreclosed upon, 401k destroyed, lied to,
ignored, stuck in two wars population actually thinking that this is an option to take to your congressman in order to be finally heard.

They really need this guy to be a nut, and alone.
Isoated. Fringe. So no one will identify with him, sympathize with him or contemplate that they could, should or would join him.

Originally posted by dreamseeker
Does it strike anyone as odd that they are so quick to call him some lone nut and just move on? Where are the psychologists with their expert
opionions. Paul Rand gave his expert opinion on the issue on the news but he is not a psychologist. A therapist needs to dig deeper talk to this young
man see what is going on in his head.
His thought patterns do some a little disorganized but I am not so sure this comes from mental illness. I personally need a lot more information. Keep
in mind I am 3 classes short of finishing my masters in Psychology. I have volunteered with a warmline here in Kansas City. I have talked to several
mentally ill indivuals including some at a local mental hospital.
Paranoid shizophrenics have more a frazzled state about them and their words are extremely disorganized in their psychotic state more so than Jared
Lee Loughner. I hate to say this but this will probably happen again. This is just a speculation but if we don't start looking at these indviuals as
human beings and figuring out what caused them to snap so to speak we will never end this type of pattern.
Of course the answer is always this was a set up or a plant of some sort and that is why no one is digging too deeply.
What does everyone think?

edit on 9-1-2011 by dreamseeker because: (no reason given)

I'm not a psychologist, but it seems to me that there have been countless people in the past who get so emotionally entwined with some idea, that
they go out and kill for it. We hear about people who kill for beliefs all the time. They don't always sound like raving lunatics, but some do.

1.) We have the extremist Muslims who blow themselves up (killing dozens in the process) for their beliefs. These people might sound like completely
rational human beings who feel they're being patriotic and loyal to their own country or people. With enough trauma and coaching they eventually
learn to justify their murderous actions.

2.) We have people like Charles Manson who are charismatic and have a certain power over weak-minded individuals. These guys kill or convince others
to kill, because they're completely bonkers.

3.) We have people like the two from the Columbine shooting who have a gripe with society. This is the revenge shooting.

4.) We have individuals who kill for the sake of self-defense, and we also have soldiers who kill on command.

This particular guy seems like a nut-case to me, and I say it for the following reason; He fired into the crowd and mowed down multiple people
(including a little girl) who seemed to have nothing to do with anything. If he had been a bit more intelligent, he would have made his mark and he
would have shot only the people he intended to have dead. Instead there are multiple unrelated victims, and what seemed to be the intended target (the
Senator) is still alive (though gravely injured). A more intelligent and "sane" person would have practiced his shot, would have planned out his
escape far better, and would not have fired at the entire crowd. That's not to say that a conspiracy can't exist, it absolutely can, but at first
glance this is the work of a crazy idiot.

I know people like looking for conspiracy theories when things like this occur. It's fun to do so. Who knows, maybe the Government drove him crazy
and pushed him to this point. Maybe a "crazy idiot" shooter is exactly what they need to push some agenda. Maybe a clean kill shot would have been
far too suspicious and would have pushed people to think "assassination" much too quickly. An assassination does nothing to convince anyone that gun
laws should be more strict, but a wild shooter who kills innocent people, now THAT is a very helpful example of why gun laws should be more strict! I
disagree of course, but if one were pushing that agenda, this is a great opportunity for it.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.